The Alex Jones Channel – The Truth About Herd Immunity Exposed
Why are the big government liberals and globalists pushing vaccines so hard using the theory of herd immunity, despite it being debunked?

Harvard Study Proves Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk, However, Vaccinated Children Do
Immunologist destroys mandatory vaccine logic in open letter.
Dear Legislator:
My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.
Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.
How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?
It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment

Gardasil Vaccine: One More Girl Dead
June 28, 2017
Health Impact News Editor Comments
The sudden death of a 12-year-old girl in Waukesha, Wisconsin, just hours after receiving the HPV Gardasil vaccine has shocked the girl’s family, and sent local media out asking questions as to how this could happen. Here is a report from WISN 12 News.
Dr. Geoffrey Swain of the local health department was interviewed to give the standard CDC reply, which is similar to almost every other vaccine, stating that severe reactions like this resulting in death are “very rare,” and about “1 out of a million”.
Assuming that there is some data to back up the claim of only “1 out of a million,” how many doses of the HPV vaccine are administered every year? According to the latest statistics (July 2014) published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services here (page 7), over 9 million per year. So the government admits that at least 9 girls per year are killed by the HPV vaccine. How many parents know this prior to taking a doctor’s advice to administer this vaccine that is supposedly a protection against cervical cancer caused by the human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease?
Apparently, when the news broke that 12-year-old Meredith Prohaska died after receiving the HPV vaccine, at least one other parent contacted a local news station in the area to report she also had a serious adverse reaction to the HPV vaccine with her 17-year-old daughter, who needed urgent care at a local hospital. The local news affiliate asked the question: “So what are the odds another local girl had a similar reaction after getting the shot?”
Here is the report:
These local news media, possibly covering the HPV vaccine for the first time, were all quick to interview and provide links to the official CDC view of the vaccine. But here are some other facts regarding the vaccine that they failed to disclose, probably because they did not take the time to look outside of the standard government response to events like this, or their station managers did not allow them to give any other news outside of what the CDC claims.

Waukesha girl dies hours after getting HPV vaccine
WISN | Updated: 8:26 AM CST Jan 8, 2015
WAUKESHA, Wis. —
As parents get their children ready to go back to school, getting them vaccinated is probably on the list.
A popular shot for young girls is the HPV vaccine, but a Waukesha mother said her daughter died hours after getting the shot.
Rebecca Prohaska’s struggling to get through every second of every day after her 12-year-old daughter Meredith unexpectedly died a week ago.
Prohaska said hours after getting checked for a sore throat and getting her first dose of the HPV vaccine, Meredith died.
“She had just thrown up, and I found her on the floor, right as I walked in,” Prohaska said.
The human papilloma virus is spread through sexual contact, common with teenagers, and can cause cervical cancer.
“Who doesn’t want to keep their child from harm and keep them safe, and this was a preventative measure,” Prohaska said.

“Scariest thing in my entire life!” Mother says her daughter rushed to the ER after receiving HPV vaccine
Posted 3:56 pm, August 8, 2014, by Katie DeLong and Myra Sanchick, Updated at 10:18PM, August 8, 2014
WAUKESHA (WITI) — New questions about the HPV vaccine — after a Waukesha family claims the shot may have killed their 12-year-old girl. Many medical professional say the vaccine is safe — but another family is sharing their story. They say their daughter was rushed to the emergency room after receiving the HPV vaccination.
12-year-old Meredith Prohaska’s funeral is set for Saturday, August 9th. If it is determined that the HPV vaccine led to her death, it will be considered a very rare occurrence.
So what are the odds another local girl had a similar reaction after getting the shot?
“Scariest thing in my entire life. Scariest thing in my entire life!” Jill Swanson said.
It was July 23rd. Swanson’s 17-year-old daughter got two vaccinations on July 22nd — one for meningitis, and the other for HPV.
Swanson’s daughter received the “Gardasil” HPV vaccine. Swanson says she soon realized something was very wrong.
“I follow her into the living room and she can barely walk,” Swanson says of her daughter.
Swanson realized she needed to call the doctor — and fast.
“As I’m talking to the nurse, my daughter goes ‘I’m having trouble breathing and my chest hurts,'” Swanson said.
Swanson says she took her daughter to urgent care. When the girl arrived, doctors called 911.

Autism Group Slams Decision Allowing Mother to Kill Her Disabled Daughter…
June 24, 2017
The euthanasia of Nancy Fitzmaurice, a severely disabled child who was not dying has made international waves with disability advocates especially outraged. Nancy’s mother had requested that her daughter be killed and was granted approval by the British legal system. While the 12-year-old Nancy had significant disabilities, she was able to breathe on her own and did not require life support.
Following the starving of Nancy through the withholding of fluids, the Autism Self Advocacy Network has released a statement slamming this decision, calling it “troubling” and “concerning”.
The decision constitutes an extremely troubling legal precedent, representing the first time the British legal system has allowed a child breathing on her own, not on life support and not diagnosed with any terminal illness, to be killed by the medical system.
Euthanasia of people with disabilities is an extremely dangerous and wholly inappropriate solution to inadequate pain management. In cases where painkillers are insufficient, a number of alternatives for pain management exist. A policy of euthanasia targets vulnerable people, particularly when it is applied to children. People with disabilities who experience chronic pain should have same access as others to life-sustaining medical treatment.
When parents and physicians have the ability to authorize the killing of disabled children, we see serious abuses. Recently, ASAN and twelve other disability rights groups filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the University of Wisconsin Hospital’s practice of counseling parents to withhold care from children with disabilities for treatable but life-threatening medical conditions. In one such instance, a child with developmental disabilities died after a hospital doctor advised his parents that they could withdraw his feeding tube – which provided fluids and nutrition – based on his supposedly low “quality of life.” The medical condition supposedly justifying this measure was treatable pneumonia. The child died the next day, after administration of morphine. Such actions demonstrate the results of a policy that allows families and clinicians to discriminate on the basis of disability in the application of life-sustaining treatment.

1991 Government Document Confirms Tdap Vaccine Causes Microcephaly
By Tami Canal On March 10, 2016
A study published in The National Center for Biotechnology Information reveals the the United Stated government has known since 1991 that a link between Tdap and microcephaly exists.
In light of this information, why are government officials set on blaming the recent microcephaly outbreak in Brazil on the Zika virus? Why is the fact that not a single known case of microcephaly been reported as a result of the virus in over 70 years?
The study, Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines, found a link between microcephaly and the Tdap vaccine.

Study – Evidence Concerning Pertussis Vaccines and Central Nervous System Disorders, Including Infantile Spasms, Hypsarrhythmia, Aseptic Meningitis, and Encephalopathy
History of Suspected Association with Pertussis Vaccines
Among the earliest case reports suggesting a possible link between infantile spasms and pertussis immunization are those of Baird and Borofsky (1957). They described 24 children who had hypsarrhythmia and infantile myoclonic seizures and whose development prior to the onset of spasms was apparently normal. Nine cases of infantile spasms were reported to have occurred between 1 and 5 days after DPT vaccination. Three of these nine children also had a history of perinatal complications that the authors thought might have been related to a risk of infantile spasms. The authors also stated, on the basis of a review of published EEG tracings, that hypsarrhythmia was present in two of the affected children described by Byers and Moll (1948). Since these early case reports, additional cases of infantile spasms in association with pertussis immunization have been described in the literature (Fukuyama et al., 1977; Millichap, 1987; Portoian-Shuhaiber and Al Rashied, 1986). The time intervals reported between vaccination and the onset of infantile spasms have been from minutes to weeks (Melchior, 1971).
Evidence from Studies in Humans
Case Reports and Case Series
One of the largest case series of infantile spasms following pertussis immunization was published by Millichap (1987). Six children ranging in age from 2 to 9 months were included. The time interval from immunization to the onset of spasms was from 6.5 hours to 5 days, and first seizures were reported to have occurred in conjunction with the first, second, or third doses of pertussis vaccine. Except for one case who had experienced myoclonic seizures since birth, no mention was made of the children having seizures prior to immunization. In reviewing the etiology and treatment of infantile spasms, Millichap (1987) listed the postulated mechanisms for pertussis-related seizures as (1) a direct neurotoxic effect, (2) an immediate immune reaction, (3) delayed cellular hypersensitivity reaction, and (4) vaccine-induced activation of a latent neurotropic virus infection.
In addition to the variability in age at the time of onset of spasms, associated vaccine dose, and time from immunization to the onset of spasms, there was no consistent pattern in the types of neurologic abnormalities reported in conjunction with infantile spasms. These included spastic diplegia, psychomotor retardation, hypotonic diplegia, and progressive neurologic deterioration. Not all children with infantile spasms have other neurologic or developmental problems, and when they do, diversity of expression of these associated neurologic conditions is typically reported (Lacy and Penry, 1976). This case series provides some of the better clinical descriptions available in the published literature of seizures occurring after immunization with DPT. Although typical of many cases of infantile spasms, information from this series also suggests that there is no consistent syndrome of neurologic manifestations among children whose spasms follow DPT immunization.
Fukuyama and colleagues (1977) studied 185 cases of infantile spasms seen in the Department of Pediatrics of the Tokyo Women’s Medical College from 1968 to 1972. Table 2 of their paper lists “DPT or DT” as one of the types of vaccines to which cases were exposed, whereas the text and all other tables and figures refer to “DPT or DP.” Thus, although there is some uncertainty about the precise vaccines to which these children were exposed, the committee considered DP to be the exposure the authors intended to describe. Complete information on immunization histories and health status prior to vaccination was available for 110 of the 185 infantile spasms cases. Of these 110 children, 22 (20 percent) had been immunized within 1 month of the onset of spasms, 10 with DPT or DP vaccine alone, 5 with DPT vaccine in combination with one or more other vaccines, 4 with smallpox vaccine alone, 2 with Japanese encephalitis vaccine alone, and 1 with polio vaccine alone. Of the 15 cases of infantile spasms with onset after immunization with either DPT or DP vaccine alone or DPT vaccine in combination with another vaccine, onset occurred after the first immunization in 3 cases, after the second in 10 cases, and after the third in 2 cases. The interval from immunization to the reported onset of spasms ranged from less than 48 hours to more than 7 days. The remaining cases had been vaccinated either more than 1 month before or more than 1 month after the onset of spasms (n = 44, 40 percent) or had never been immunized (n = 44, 40 percent). The authors gave no indication that any of the cases had had whooping cough, either before or after the onset of infantile spasms.

1991 Government Document Confirms TDAP Vaccine Causes Microcephaly
February 23, 2016 Sean Adl-Tabatabai
Research published in The National Center for Biotechnology Information reveals that the U.S. government knew as early as 1991 that the Tdap vaccine causes microcephaly.
Why then are the government so keen to blame microcephaly on the recent zika virus outbreak when for at least 70 years no known cases of microcephaly had been reported as a result of the virus?
According to the study, entitled Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines:
Among symptomatic cases, presumed causes are frequently grouped according to the timing of the suspected insult as occurring pre-, peri-, or postnatally. Prenatal factors are thought to account for 20 to 30 percent of cases. This category includes cerebral anomalies, chromosomal disorders, neurocutaneous syndromes such as tuberous sclerosis, inherited metabolic disorders, intrauterine infections, family history of seizures, and microcephaly (Bobele and Bodensteiner, 1990; Kurokawa et al., 1980; Ohtahara, 1984; Riikonen and Donner, 1979).
Among the earliest case reports suggesting a possible link between infantile spasms and pertussis immunization are those of Baird and Borofsky (1957). They described 24 children who had hypsarrhythmia and infantile myoclonic seizures and whose development prior to the onset of spasms was apparently normal. Nine cases of infantile spasms were reported to have occurred between 1 and 5 days after DPT vaccination.
Three of these nine children also had a history of perinatal complications that the authors thought might have been related to a risk of infantile spasms. The authors also stated, on the basis of a review of published EEG tracings, that hypsarrhythmia was present in two of the affected children described by Byers and Moll (1948). Since these early case reports, additional cases of infantile spasms in association with pertussis immunization have been described in the literature (Fukuyama et al., 1977; Millichap, 1987; Portoian-Shuhaiber and Al Rashied, 1986). The time intervals reported between vaccination and the onset of infantile spasms have been from minutes to weeks (Melchior, 1971).

Historical Evidence That Debunks The Popular Myth That Vaccines Eliminated Childhood Infectious Diseases
Jun 22, 2017
An Honest Look at the Historical Evidence That Debunks the Popular Myth That Says That Vaccines Eliminated Childhood Infectious Diseases
Over the 40 plus years that I was a family practitioner and teacher (the English word “doctor” derives from the Latin verb docere [do-ke-re] which means “to teach”), I have tried to fulfill what I have regarded as my solemn professional duty to warn my patients (and anybody else who would listen) about the multitude of deceptions and myths that all-too-often come from for-profit sociopathic pharmaceutical corporations (and their hangers-on). Those pesky entities never seem to give up trying to get patients (and us doctors as well) to desperately want to have the next blockbuster drug or vaccine, no matter what the fine print warnings say. Sadly, those always toxic synthetic substances invariably enriches the corporation more than it helps the duped patient.
Most of the time I was able to take the time to resist the temptation to blindly prescribe whatever treatment my patient saw on TV the night before, but it did take time. As I have often proclaimed in this column, it only takes two minutes to write a prescription, whereas it takes 20 minutes to not write one (a bunch of teaching and some arguing is required). But when time is money and medicine is a for-profit venture, one can predict what the average clinic administrator (and too many physicians) will choose to do. And therein lies one of the biggest problems in the for-profit medical (non-)system in America.
Being a physician, I had a certain amount of power to influence my patients to view with suspicion the latest fad drug. But more often than I care to admit, I found that I had also been the victim of deceptions and myths that my friendly – and very cunning – pharmaceutical salesperson wanted me to believe.
One of the most serious myths that I had to unlearn over the decades was the one that my academic (as opposed to clinical) medical professors had taught me about the “fact” that vaccines were entirely safe and entirely effective and were the reasons that measles, mumps, chickenpox and polio had virtually disappeared.

I’m a Mom Who Is Listening To What The CDC Says About Vaccines.
May 3, 2017The PDF CDC vaccine preventable disease chart – https://walkinginquicksandcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/vaccine-preventable-disease-chart.pdf
Today, I’m going to pretend we can trust the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website to make decisions on whether or not to vaccinate. I’m going to ignore the fact that a CDC scientist revealed that he and his colleagues committed scientific fraud by omitting and destroying statistically significant data showing risks associated with vaccines, because it has already been documented here, here, and here. I’m also going to pretend that every child who has a reaction to a vaccine has a parent who realizes and reports it. I know that’s impossible since most people haven’t perused the government website that discusses injuries occurring 42 days after vaccination. I’m also going to assume that all physicians have been trained to identify vaccine injuries, even though I have yet to meet a single doctor who was educated on this in medical school.
Based on the CDC’s reported data, I’d like to propose they update their website with a more accurate and factual revision that reads: “Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects. The most common side effects that doctors are aware of and willing to document are mild, however On the other hand, many vaccine side effects preventable disease symptoms can be serious, or even deadly. Even though many of these diseases are rare in this country, they still occur around the world and can be brought into the U.S. putting unvaccinated children at a minuscule risk, similar to the risk of a child being attacked by a crazy clown this year. The risk of an unvaccinated American child being struck by lightning far outweighs the risk of someone giving them polio, but stating that out loud isn’t good for business and we do quite well for ourselves financially by going to work for drug companies once we leave here. You’ll notice if you look closely at the data we provide on our website, that the statistical risks associated with each dose of each vaccine are much greater than the risks associated with not being up to date on vaccines.”
Speaking of the risks associated with each vaccine, what does “very rare” mean? How many people experience coma, permanent brain damage, or death from vaccines? The CDC isn’t telling us. Undoubtedly is it is more common than the number of people in the United States who have been diagnosed with diphtheria and polio this year. Additionally, I purposely omitted side effects most parents don’t consider worrisome, like the fussiness that occurs in one of three children receiving DTaP or the tiredness or poor appetite that occurs in one of ten. The truth is, we don’t know exactly what these side effects might mean long term.

#VaXism NEWS
“Can you refute Dr Wakefield’s data?” No
“Do you believe from your studies mercury is a contributing factor in autism?” Yes
Dr Baskin’s testimony
Full C-SPAN video for the hearing: https://www.c-span.org/video/?174176-1/childhood-vaccines-autism
December 10, 2002Childhood Vaccines and Autism Witnesses testified about potential links between vaccines and childhood autism. Among the topics they addressed were current research into the problem, the potential scope of the disease, and evaluations into the severity of the problem.

Dr. Bradstreet began using GcMaf to treat Autism with significant results. Please do your own research regarding Dr. Bradstreet and his work. *Video used in compliance with Fair Use guidelines defined by US copyright laws.

Want to see this entire film for free? Well, you can –
Register for the free replay of Vaccines Revealed, happening now. Sign up here tinyurl.com/9Episodes
This jaw-dropping film, “Vaccine Syndrome” is included in the Vaccines Revealed 9 part series.
Oscar nominated filmmaker, Scott Miller’s VACCINE SYNDROME ➤➤➤
The military victim’s point of view about the Direct Order they received from their superior officers to receive the controversial Anthrax Vaccine. With all of the facts about the Vaccine, the US Military still intends to vaccinate the entire US Military!
Available to own as well ➤➤➤ http://tiny.cc/OwnVaccinesRevealed

Shingles Vaccine Dangers Exposed In FDA Letter to Merck
Posted on: Monday, May 1st 2017 at 6:00 am
Written By: Anne Dachel
I also contacted Robert Krakow for a response. He was one of the principle authors of “Unanswered Questions”, the revelation in 2011 that our federal government had for years been compensating children for vaccine injuries that included autism, and he is a former prosecutor who now specializes in vaccine injury cases.
This is what he had to say about Zostavax.
Given the obvious risk of serious injury from the Zostavax vaccine, any person over 50 should proceed with caution regarding the commercially promoted recommendation to get this vaccine. While shingles can sometimes be serious in rare cases, my view is that efforts to maintain good health and a strong immune system will serve us better than obtaining this vaccine, which has the undeniable risk of serious injury. There are almost 5000 reports of adverse events after Zostavax. The vaccine contains substances that can provoke autoimmunity, including human DNA contamination, gelatin, neomycin and other problematic substances. As with many other vaccines, I am not convinced that the vaccine or its components have been properly tested.
The promotion of Zostavax on television and other places is as irresponsible as it is inappropriate. The value of the vaccine is overstated, while the risk of adverse reactions is downplayed. This skews the benefit/cost analysis that all of us must employ when we individually decide to take any vaccine or drug.
The result of all this is that an individual’s right to make informed decisions about his or her health is being overridden by bloated claims of efficacy and safety coupled with risks that are hidden from view. Because of misinformation, our informed consent is, effectively, being overridden. This is not an acceptable situation for any American.
Our emerging experience with Zostavax mirrors our experience with childhood vaccines. Benefits are exaggerated while risk is minimized, all in the context of relentless promotion. The difference with Zostavax is that we can more easily see when injury occurs as compared with developmental injuries that are difficult to recognize and diagnose, and are often confused with unrelated disorders. The result is the same for both adults and children: unnecessary injury and suffering, often lifelong.
It is the policy of our nation that vaccine injuries do occur and the victims of vaccines should be compensated. For the most part, it is unknown how such injuries occur and how often they occur. Despite this reality, there exists relentless commercial promotion of vaccines. For the sake of the health of our people, this must stop. Public education regarding vaccine risk should be increased, and more rigorous testing of all vaccine brought to market should be applied. Unless this happens, the disturbing trend of increasing vaccine injury will persist as new and exotic vaccines are introduced into the marketplace with dubious justification, except for the bountiful commercial windfall it confers on vaccine manufacturers.
Our thanks also to Robert for telling the truth about a vaccine being sold as safe and effective.

The Vaccine Safety Myth
Posted on: Tuesday, February 10th 2015 at 11:15 am
Written By: Jamie Deckoff-Jones, MD
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2015
Here’s something not being discussed in the measles/vaccine debate. Take a look at the current table of vaccine excipients: Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary. Notice how many contain aluminum, a known neurotoxin, implicated in ASIA (autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants). Here is a PubMed search which brings up 75 papers since 2008, specifically on this subject. There are a few hundred on aluminum and neurotoxicity. Here are two papers about ASIA and CFS/fibromyalgia, one suggesting a link with autism and a recent review paper about aluminum adjuvant biopersistence and delayed neurotoxicity:
Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia following immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine: another angle of the ‘autoimmune (auto-inflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants’ (ASIA).
The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome.
Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism
Biopersistence and brain translocation of aluminum adjuvants of vaccines
The FDA says that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is GRAS (generally recognized as safe). The argument goes that since children are exposed to aluminum in the environment anyway, giving them a little more in their vaccines is safe. Then there is MSG, formaldehyde, animal and human cells, adventitious viruses, the list goes on and on, each deserving of concern in its own right. The GRAS designation should be another blog entirely…
From the CDC website: “In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.” That’s roughly a 0.1% risk of encephalitis and there is a great deal of literature showing that high dose vitamin A at the onset of illness mitigates that risk significantly. The most recent numbers show that the current risk of autism, aka encephalitis/encephalopathy, is 20 times that, higher in some places. We are faced with an epidemic of allergic, neuroimmune and autoimmune disorders. The prevalence of chronic illness in our children is greater than 50% (2011). 16% have a developmental disability (2008). 11% have ADHD (2011). 2% have autism (2013). It is an emergency. Measles is not. I am not saying that vaccines are the only cause of this disaster, but there are many reasons to think they are contributory. Instead of mandating more vaccines, we should be trying to understand which children are at risk: Personalized vaccines: the emerging field of vaccinomics.
Being concerned about vaccines is not the same as discounting the dangers of infectious diseases. Not trusting the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies is not anti-science, but prudent, since they have earned our mistrust in spades. They have lied and been wrong so many times. Why believe them now? The drug companies regularly pay out billion dollar settlements for fraud convictions. Merck is currently embroiled in lawsuits brought by whistleblowers: Massive Fraud In Merck MMR Vaccine Testing. The incestuous relationship between the CDC and the vaccine manufacturers is epitomized by Julie Gerberding, former director of the CDC, now head of vaccine safety at Merck.

Gardasil: The decision we will always regret
February 4, 2014
By Kim Robinson, Red Hill, Pennsylvania
Katie’s Gardasil Experience
By all accounts, our daughter was normal before receiving the HPV vaccine. Katie performed very well in school. She was conscientious, hard-working and took pride in getting good grades. She loved dancing having taken dance classes since she was 3 years old. Katie always danced and twirled throughout our home and anywhere else she happened to be. When Katie was 10, she joined cheerleading and became involved in competition cheerleading. She was very active, taking four hours of dance class every week plus spending many more hours practicing with her competition cheer team. Katie was healthy and vibrant.
We were very diligent with our children’s health. We never missed an annual check-up and we also followed the pediatrician’s recommended vaccine schedule including annual flu shots. Our pediatrician recommended the Gardasil vaccine. The Gardasil vaccine was heavily advertised on TV. We read the vaccine Disclosure. It said that the vaccine should not be given to those with HIV. Katie did not have HIV so we signed the Consent.
On September 2, 2010 at the age of 11, Katie received the first Gardasil vaccine. Katie’s first day of middle school was September 7, 2010. Initially, we believed that her fatigue and headaches were being caused by having to get up much earlier in the morning for middle school. However, she never adjusted to the new schedule and soon her symptoms began exploding. Katie would often tell us “I don’t know what’s wrong, I just don’t feel good.” She began sleeping a lot – over 12 hours a day and even more on the weekends, which would allow her gather enough energy to go to school a few days before she crashed again. She missed days at school, dance lessons and cheer practices. Soon her illness was visible on the outside too. Katie didn’t look good – constant dark circles under her eyes, her skin color was ashen and she appeared listless.

Gardasil Is Destroying Our Daughters And Nobody Cares!
Posted on February 20, 2017 by Jacqui Deevoy
This is the cry from Gini Blesky, one of thousands of mothers worldwide whose young daughters’ lives have been devastated by the ‘side-effects’ of government-approved HPV vaccine Gardasil.
The much-debated vaccine, developed to prevent HPV (which can lead to cervical cancer) – given to girls around the world at around the age of 12 – has been in the spotlight for some time now, with stories popping up on social media and alternative radio networks and with no thanks whatsoever to the mainstream media.
As a journalist, mother and general truth-seeker, I’ve had a personal interest in this controversial vaccine for many years. When it was first introduced, I refused to let my teenage daughters have it, after I’d tried to research it and found nothing. My general feeling at the time was that the introduction of it seemed a bit sudden and I wasn’t altogether comfortable with that.
But it was while I was trying – and failing – to get the UK mainstream media to publish a story about the dangers of this vaccine that I realized that the refusal of the publications I approached to give it any exposure was a story in itself! So here I am…
Because of my personal interest in the story (by this time, I’d met several girls whose lives and families had been severely affected by illness after the jab and I’d discovered that two families I was related to had also been affected), I was keen to put out a warning. While many countries were working on withdrawing the vaccine due to the damage it was causing, other countries – the UK and US included – were stepping up the programme. In recent months, there’s even been talk of giving the vaccine to boys.
If anyone wants an interview with Gini Blesky, please call 07514 64 366 or email jacqui.deevoy@gmail.com
To get more info about AHVID, please contact Freda Birrell on 07752 945 545 or at jeanfreda8@btinternet.com
You can contact Gini Blesky and follow Mia’s progress via Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gini.kok
Mia’s GoFundMe appeal is at: https://www.gofundme.com/mias-recovery-fund

New Vaccines Will Permanently Alter Human DNA
Why is the government so maniacal about injecting vaccines?
by Jon Rappoport
Consider this article in light of the accelerating push to mandate and enforce vaccination across the planet.
The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/2015, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans.
This is not science fiction:
“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”
“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”
“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
Here is the punchline:
“The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”
Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Permanent alteration.
The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:
“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”
Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

Protection Without a Vaccine By CARL ZIMMERMARCH 9, 2015
Last month, a team of scientists announced what could prove to be an enormous step forward in the fight against H.I.V.
Scientists at Scripps Research Institute said they had developed an artificial antibody that, once in the blood, grabbed hold of the virus and inactivated it. The molecule can eliminate H.I.V. from infected monkeys and protect them from future infections.
But this treatment is not a vaccine, not in any ordinary sense. By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease. Researchers are testing this novel approach not just against H.I.V., but also Ebola, malaria, influenza and hepatitis.
“The sky’s the limit,” said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.
Continue reading the main story
Dr. Farzan and other scientists are increasingly hopeful that this technique may be able to provide long-term protection against diseases for which vaccines have failed. The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.
“It could revolutionize the way we immunize against public health threats in the future,” said Dr. Gary J. Nabel, the chief scientific officer of Sanofi, a pharmaceutical company that produces a wide range of vaccines.
Whether I.G.T. will succeed is still an open question. Researchers still need to gauge its safety and effectiveness in humans. And the prospect of genetically engineering people to resist infectious diseases may raise concerns among patients.

Three Examples of Pro-Vaccination Hypocrisy By Tami Canal On February 20, 2017
The common sense, or lack thereof, of some people truly baffles me and I have reached a point where I’m going to call out the hypocrisy of certain individuals. If the following offends you, I make no apologies. Instead, I encourage you to focus your outrage on the thousands of innocent victims of the CDC’s vaccination program. (Read more about that by clicking here: http://vaccineimpact.com/2016/vaccine-court-stats-on-injuries-and-deaths-betray-governments-position-on-vaccine-safety/)
If you advocate for any of the following issues, but allow your child to be vaccinated…you are a hypocrite.
1. Pro-Life
You cannot be pro-life and pro-vaccine…unless there’s a clause in the pro-life rule book that allows for the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccinations given to humans.
This is not fear-mongering or “woo”, as the trolls will cry. It’s a plain and simple fact that a minimum of 27 vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue, DNA, proteins and cells including:
-Hep A
-Hep A/Hep B Combo
-Polio
-Dtap/Polio/HiB Combo
-MMR
-MMRV Pro Quad
-Varicella
-Shingles
It’s shocking that little to no religious outcry exists and it’s mind boggling that pro-life advocates will denounce abortion, but seemingly condone the use of aborted fetal elements in vaccinations given to children.
It’s also imperative that I mention that the research that is available on the safety of injecting human DNA into another human shows that there may be radical immune responses and can even cause death.

Top government scientists refuse to vaccinate their children
By: Vicki Batts Date: August 19, 2016
How shocking is it that New Mexico, the school district with the highest percentage of students whose families are opting out of vaccines, is actually one of the state’s most scientifically literate communities?
Well, if you know how harmful vaccines really are, you might not really be all that surprised. But for many, the 2.3 percent of students forgoing traditional vaccine regimens in Los Alamos is causing quite the upset. After all, many of the parents in the community work for US Los Alamos Labs, or one of the other scientific organizations that call the area home. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory has even conducted extensive research and development on a vaccine for HIV.
The Superintendent of the Los Alamos school systems has said that he finds the high rate of parents exempting their children from vaccination “curious,” given that it is a “pretty scientific and literate community.”
While the mainstream media continues to come up with all kinds of wild reasons for why “anti-vaxxers” don’t vaccinate their children, a community of scientists continues to abstain from the practice, much to the chagrin of pro-vaccine activists. Los Alamos is not alone; Santa Fe’s percentage of children not getting jabbed was just a few points behind, at 2.1 percent.
Anna Pentler, the head of the New Mexico Immunization Coalition (a pro-vaccine group) seems to think that not wanting to inject their children with toxic adjuvants and heavy metals is an “emotional issue,” and not an issue of ethics and morality. She says that while the science could be “99 to 1″ in favor of vaccines, a parent’s anecdotal story of how vaccines harmed their child could easily sway another parent’s opinion.
While it is true that the countless horror stories that many parents and children are forced to endure post-vaccination are enough to give any reasonable parent pause, the fact is that the science behind vaccine damage is also all there. The problem is that no one wants to believe it; no one wants their reality disrupted.
As the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute states, “[T]here is a large body of scientific evidence confirming numerous vaccine safety deficits that counteract well-publicized benefits. For example, several studies show that thimerosal (mercury) and aluminum in vaccines can cause neurological, immunological and developmental harm.”
The CDC itself has conducted investigations on the harmful effects of certain ingredients in vaccines, and found that they did in fact disrupt neurological development in young children. But the mainstream media doesn’t care about that; they want you to fall in line and do your “due diligence” by getting vaccinated to maintain society’s “herd immunity” – which isn’t even real, by the way.

The Herd Immunity Myth – Treating Our Children Like Cattle
February 22, 2017
by Joanna Karpasea-Jones from VaccineRiskAwareness.com
When my oldest child was a baby, after telling the health visitor I didn’t vaccinate, she promptly exclaimed, “Oh well, she’s lucky as she has herd immunity from the vaccinated children to protect her!”
She then went on to say that not everyone had the luxury of my decision because if less than 95% of children were vaccinated, then it wouldn’t work anymore. I thought this was a silly concept because if vaccination truly worked, then any child who was vaccinated would be protected from disease, no matter how many ‘infectious’ unvaccinated kids there were, and if the 95% herd immunity figure was a genuine argument, it only points to one thing: the medical profession don’t really believe in the effectiveness of their own vaccines.
What Is The Herd Immunity Theory?
The herd immunity theory was originally coined in 1933 by a researcher called Hedrich. He had been studying measles patterns in the US between 1900-1931 (years before any vaccine was ever invented for measles) and he observed that epidemics of the illness only occurred when less than 68% of children had developed a natural immunity to it. This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.
Later on, vaccinologists adopted the phrase and increased the figure from 68% to 95% with no scientific justification as to why, and then stated that there had to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity. Essentially, they took Hedrich’s study and manipulated it to promote their vaccination programmes.
(MONTHLY ESTIMATES OF THE CHILD POPULATION “SUSCEPTIBLE’ TO MEASLES, 1900-1931, BALTIMORE, MD, AW HEDRICH, American Journal of Epidemiology, May 1933 – Oxford University Press).
Why Vaccine Induced Herd Immunity is Flawed
If vaccination really immunises, then your vaccinated child will be immunised and therefore protected against any disease an unvaccinated child gets. If he isn’t, his shots didn’t work.
We should also examine whether or not the vaccines actually do provide immunity and in which populations epidemics occurred. Was it the unvaccinated children spreading disease as they would have parents believe? Or were those epidemics already in previously vaccinated people?
To do this I have listed several epidemics that have occurred in the last 100 years or so, including Smallpox, which medics claim that vaccination eradicated.
There was a Smallpox epidemic in Pittsburgh, USA, in 1924. This epidemic was started by a mandatory vaccination campaign in which people were imprisoned if they refused the shot. A health club then started a suit against Dr. Voux, who had headed the vaccination drive, for bringing disease upon the people. Legal council for the health club stated: ‘There have been NO deaths from Smallpox in Pittsburgh during the previous nine years from 1915 to 1924, including the years when there was no vaccination or re-vaccination, at all – and hence, no vaccine immunity.’
They pointed out that the vaccine campaign had caused 22 deaths and 112 cases of vaccine-induced Smallpox. (You can read a detailed history of vaccination in Eleanor McBean’s book, Vaccination Condemned, Better Life Research, 1981).
In Germany between 1947-1974, there were ten outbreaks of Smallpox including 94 people who had been previously ‘immunised’, who then became ill with the disease. (The Vaccination Nonsense, 2004 lectures, Dr. Gerhard Buchwald).
Here are some more recent epidemics in vaccinated populations:
In March 2006, 245 cases of mumps were confirmed in Iowa, US, where the law requires vaccination for school entry. Eleven year-old Will Hean of Davenport was diagnosed with mumps, and his 21 year old sister Kate.Both children had gotten the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, or MMR. “He had all the shots and everything. You don’t think you’re going to get the mumps after you’ve been inoculated,” said Will’s father, Wayne Hean. (2006, The Associated Press).
In 2002 an outbreak of Varicella (Chickenpox) occurred in a US daycare centre for fully vaccinated children. Varicella developed in 25 of 88 children (28.4 percent) between December 1, 2000, and January 11, 2001. A case occurred in a healthy child who had been vaccinated three years previously and who infected more than 50 percent of his classmates who had no history of varicella. The effectiveness of the vaccine was 44.0 percent against disease of any severity.Children who had been vaccinated three years or more before the outbreak were at greater risk for vaccine failure than those who had been vaccinated more recently.
Conclusions: In this outbreak, vaccination provided poor protection against varicella. Longer interval since vaccination was associated with an increased risk of vaccine failure. Breakthrough infections in vaccinated, healthy persons can be as infectious as varicella in unvaccinated persons. (Outbreak of Varicella at a Day-Care Centre despite Vaccination – 2002 Karin Galil, M.D., M.P.H., Brent Lee, M.D., M.P.H., Tara Strine, M.P.H., Claire Carraher, R.N., Andrew L. Baughman, Ph.D., M.P.H., Melinda Eaton, D.V.M., Jose Montero, M.D., and Jane Seward, M.B., B.S., M.P.H.).
And here’s some vaccine failures for measles:
Five cases of measles secondary vaccine failure with confirmed seroconversion after live measles vaccination. (Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Disease vol. 29, no. 2, 1997, pp.187-90): Two, five, seven and twelve years after vaccination with further attenuated live measles vaccine, three of five patients experienced modified measles infection, and the remaining two had typical measles. “This may be the first SVF case report that confirms the existence of completely waning immunity in recipients of the further attenuated live measles vaccines.”
And Whooping Cough:
Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 179, April 1999; 915-923. Temporal trends in the population structure of bordetella pertussis during 1949-1996 in a highly vaccinated population- “Despite the introduction of large-scale pertussis vaccination in 1953 and high vaccination coverage, pertussis is still an endemic disease in The Netherlands, with epidemic outbreaks occurring every 3-5 years.” One factor that might contribute to this is the ability of pertussis strains to adapt to vaccine-induced immunity, causing new strains of pertussis to re-emerge in this well-vaccinated population.
Just recently, Dr. Kari Simonsen, a pediatrician at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA, said one in five children who are vaccinated for whooping cough will still get the disease. She said efficacy of the vaccine was ‘comparatively low’, but said ‘It’s the best vaccine we can build to date.’ Despite admitting this, she still believes that parents should get the vaccine for their children.
At St. Robert Bellarmine School in west Omaha, 12 children had confirmed whooping cough, of those, most had been vaccinated.
The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services reported Thursday that the state has had 117 confirmed cases this year, up from 70 all of last year and 99 in 2006. There were 312 cases in Nebraska in 2005.
In Douglas County, 48 cases have been reported this year. Last year, 21 cases were reported.
This is in a country that gives five doses of the vaccine in the first four years of life and then another dose at 11 years of age!
(Omaha World Herald, ‘Vaccine Didn’t Stop Whooping Cough’, 31st October 2008).
Victor Plotkin – an epidemiologist from Lake County in the US has reported that there have been 82 cases of pertussis in the county so far this year.
‘Plotkin said the county did see very high numbers of cases during a nationwide outbreak of pertussis in 2004 and 2005. In 2004, there were 152 cases of pertussis and 135 cases in 2005. However, before that, pertussis cases in the county had averaged about 8 to 10 a year for many years.
Plotkin said the 2004 and 2005 pertussis outbreak appears that it may have been attributed to waning immunity among older children and adults who had not received booster shots. He said the most recent outbreak is a bit more puzzling because many of the children who are becoming ill are younger children who were recently vaccinated.
“Unfortunately, during this outbreak, even people that have been recently vaccinated are becoming sick anyway,” he said. “Their symptoms are milder, but they still can pass the bacteria along to others and make others sick.”
(Whooping Cough Increases in Lake County – the Vernon Hills Review 20th November 2008).

Public Health Myth #4: Herd Immunity
The Myth: Vaccines provide “herd immunity” and are for the greater good of the society.
The Truth: Herd immunity through vaccination does not exist. The theory behind herd immunity is that if a given percentage of individuals (usually between 85-96%) are vaccinated, the community is fully immune from outbreaks and the immunized protect those who cannot be immunized. However, many outbreaks have occurred within populations that have been fully immunized, and some research points to the vaccination program as the instigator of outbreaks.
Supporting statistics for this phenomenon include:

2009: over two dozen cases of pertussis in Hunterdon County, New Jersey; all the children infected had been immunized prior to contracting the illness
1994: measles outbreak in Cincinnati; 80% of the children involved had had at least three doses of the vaccine
1989: 2,720 reported cases of measles nationally; 72.5% (1,972 of them) occurred in those who were vaccinated
1989: measles outbreak in a high school in Illinois; 69 cases, 99.7% occurred in those who were vaccinated
1987: CDC reported 2,440 cases of measles among vaccinated children
1986: measles outbreak in Corpus Christi, TX; 99% occurred in children who had been vaccinated
1986: in Kansas; 1,300 cases of pertussis were reported; 90% occurred in those who were vaccinated
1984, measles outbreak at a high school in Waltham, Massachusetts; 27 cases, 98% had documented proof of vaccination against the measles
1971, a rubella epidemic in Casper, Wyoming; 84% (91 of the 125 cases) occurred in vaccinated children

During the measles outbreaks above, it’s important to note that there were a surprisingly low number of measles cases in the unvaccinated population.
Many studies reveal that clusters of children have gotten measles and whooping cough despite vaccination. For example, according to the Ohio Department of Health, 50% the reported cases of whooping cough in Ohio from 1987 to 1991 were in vaccinated persons. The Journal of Pediatrics published a study in 1989 showing a 55% failure rate in the pertussis vaccine (Walene James, Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth).
The solution so far to these obvious vaccine failures is to mandate more boosters. So the CDC has added multiple boosters to the schedule as they continue to blame outbreaks on the unvaccinated.
This type of thinking completely contradicts the whole premise behind vaccination. If the vaccine worked as purported, it shouldn’t matter if anyone else was vaccinated. If you were immune, it should not matter if you are around one unvaccinated person, or a million unvaccinated people.
If vaccines don’t provide herd immunity, what does?
True herd immunity can only result from a healthy, fully functioning immune system. Vaccines cannot confer “herd immunity” because vaccines only stimulate one of the two essential parts of the immune system. And the part they do stimulate they do so ineffectively.
The immune system is made up of the two lines of defense: the first is the innate system that relies on “killer cells” and the second is the humoral system which produces antibodies for anything that gets beyond the innate system. When something is virulent enough to produce antibodies from the humoral system after passing through the innate system, the totality of the response produces lifelong immunity from that specific invader.
Vaccines are said to work when they provoke antibodies but since they bypass the innate system of killer cells, the antibody response isn’t as strong as it would have been had the virus passed through the immune system in the proper way. This creates a secondary issue of “original antigenic sin” (OAS).

Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined
by Marco Cáceres
Perhaps the most egregious example of clever sleight of hand (… not to mention the outright, blatant rewriting of history) on the part of public health officials in the United States occurred in 1954 when the U.S. government changed the diagnostic criteria for polio.1 It was the year that medical researcher and virologist Jonas Salk produced his inactivated injectable polio vaccine (IPV). The vaccine was licensed in 1955 and began to be used to inoculate millions of children against polio.
The Salk vaccine has been widely hailed as the vanquisher of polio, and it is commonly used as the shining example of how vaccines are the miracle drugs for combating infectious diseases… and now even against diseases that are not infectious. Pick any disease, illness or disorder you want. You got cancer, cholera, peanut allergies, stress, obesity… we’ll develop a vaccine for it.
What the apologists for the Salk vaccine regurgitate from a common script (… some might say scripture) is that before the vaccine was introduced and tested on one million children—the so-called “Polio Pioneers”—in 19542 more than 50,000 people in the U.S. were contracting polio each year, and that by the end of the 1950s the numbers were down to less than 10,000.3 Ergo, the Salk vaccine saved the U.S. from polio. Open and shut case.
Hmm, not so fast.
What is conveniently omitted from this heroic story is that the reason the number of polio cases in the U.S. dropped so precipitously following the mass introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1955 was not medical, but rather administrative. Yes it’s true, in 1952 there were 52,879 reported cases of polio in the U.S. And yes, in 1955 the number went down to 28,985, and by 1959 it had dropped to 8,425.3 But first of all, it’s important to note that the numbers were already declining significantly prior to the initial use of the Salk vaccine. In 1953, there were 35,592 cases of polio in the U.S.3 So there were other things going on in the U.S. at the time totally unrelated to the Salk vaccine.
More importantly, though, in 1954 the U.S. government simply redefined polio. Yes, the government can do that. It does this kind of stuff occasionally in order to help it meet its public policy objectives when it is unable to actually achieve them. How often have you heard of Congress playing smoke and mirrors, gimmicks with the national budget deficit, or on the issue of the unemployment rate? Exactly.
When it comes to government and public policy, the truth is seldom absolute. That’s just the nature of the beast.
According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:
In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.1

The Salk ‘Miracle’ Myth
by Marco Cáceres
A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette titled “Sixty Years Later, Recalling the Jonas Salk Polio ‘Miracle’” written by Virginia Linn keeps the myth of the so-called miracle of the Salk polio vaccine alive and well.1 It also serves as a continuing testimony to the laziness of the mainstream media to do its historical homework. Ms. Linn’s piece opens with, “Sixty years ago this coming Sunday (April 12), the Salk polio vaccine was declared ‘safe, effective and potent,’ an announcement cheered with the fervor of a national holiday. At the time, the dreaded disease was infecting more than 50,000 children in the United States a year, killing many and leaving some so paralyzed they could breathe only with the help of an iron lung.”1
It is true that before the Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955, more than 50,000 people in the US contracted polio in one year. In 1952, a total of 52,879 people got polio. But by 1955, the numbers had already declined by 45%. In 1953, 35,592 contracted polio in the US. In 1954, it was 38,476. In 1955, it was 28,985.2
So it is a fact of history that the numbers dropped precipitously before the Salk vaccine was widely distributed. Now, let’s start with 1954 when medical researcher and virologist Salk actually came up with his inactivated injectable polio vaccine. That same year, the government redefined polio. According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:
In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.3
Under the new definition of polio, thousands of cases which would have previously been counted as polio would no longer be counted as polio. The change in the definition laid the groundwork for creating the impression that the Salk vaccine was effective.
In 1955, the government began a nationwide mass vaccination campaign using the Salk vaccine. From 1957 to 1958, the number of polio cases (despite the new, stricter definition) spiked upward by 50% because the vaccine itself induced paralysis.4 5 From 1958 to 1959, polio cases increased by 80%.4 Afterward, polio began to decline, probably because the bulk of the vaccinations had already been given during the second half of the 1950s… and because of the new, stricter definition. In 1960, there were only 3,190 cases of polio, compared to 8,425 in 1959.2
The number of polio cases would have been even much higher in 1957-1959 had the government not changed the rules in midstream. By then, though, Jonas Salk had already been on the cover of TIME magazine and was an international hero. There were good reasons that polio dramatically declined in the US, but Mr. Salk and his vaccine was not necessarily one of them. In fact, polio declined despite the Salk vaccine.

Diseases in the vaccinated
“Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection.” Dr A. Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine
Dr A. Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine (lecture to Italian doctors in Piacenza, Italy, December 7th 1985)

Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic
Dr Tim O’Shea
Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden?
Before 1900, reactions to peanuts were unheard of. Today almost a 1.5 million children in this country are allergic to peanuts.
What happened? Why is everybody buying EpiPens now?
Looking at all the problems with vaccines during the past decade, [2] just a superficial awareness is enough to raise the suspicion that vaccines might have some role in the appearance of any novel allergy among children.
But reactions to peanuts are not just another allergy. Peanut allergy has suddenly emerged as the #1 cause of death from food reactions, being in a category of allergens able to cause anaphylaxis. This condition brings the risk of asthma attack, shock, respiratory failure, and even death. Primarily among children.
Sources cited in Heather Fraser’s 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic suggest a vaccine connection much more specifically. We learn that a class of vaccine adjuvants – excipients – is a likely suspect in what may accurately be termed an epidemic. [1]
But let’s back up a little. We have to look at both vaccines and antibiotics in recent history, and the physical changes the ingredients in these brand new medicines introduced into the blood of children.